Lone Survivor

Like Peter Berg’s prior The Kingdom, which pictured a fantasy F.B.I. intervention in Saudi Arabia, Lone Survivor pretends to dabble in a frothy moral ambiguity, swiftly betraying its true aims with trigger-happy jingoism. Recreating a botched operation in Afghanistan that ultimately led to the deaths of 19 Navy SEALS, the film seeks to be unbearable in its violence, never equivocating about the necessity of martyrdom in military culture. Much in the vein of Black Hawk Down, a film from which Berg unmistakably took encouragement, a roster of young white A-listers are given starring roles in the cadre, with the implicit knowledge (see: title) that they won’t make it to the movie’s end. Yet despite the foreknowledge of a bloodbath, the heavy emphasis on sacrifice, there can be no mistaking it for an antiwar film.

The team leader is the rogueish Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), who finds himself stranded with his squad (Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, Ben Foster) on an arid Afghan cliff. Sent from Bagram Air Force Base—under the command of Lieutenant Commander Erik Kristensen (an especially humorless Eric Bana)—to either kill or capture Taliban commander Ahmad Shah (Yousuf Azami), who Berg introduces decapitating a hapless villager, the guys hit a snag when their hiding place is stumbled upon by a couple of goatherds with a walkie-talkie. Some of the men want to kill the two civilians, one of whom is a teenage boy, but eventually decide, with much vexation, to instead adhere to the Geneva Conventions and set them free. This decision inevitably kicks off a Taliban attack up the mountain, with scores of combatants imprisoning the SEALs among scraggly patches of tree and rock.

Strictly as a piece of action cinema, Berg’s staging of the firefight exudes a strikingly palpable tension: Each of the SEALs is pinned to his own slim area of cover, with bullets ricocheting from every possible direction just off screen. The more cinematographer Tobias A. Schliesser tightens the frame around each man, the more chaotic the editing becomes; the shootout feels fast, seemingly endless, and as such without relief. Eventually the four (all injured) decide to roll down the cliff to eke out a new position; the camera follows each man as he tumbles downward, picking up every last bone-crunching thud, the blood-covered bodies already resembling corpses free falling in suspended motion.

This is one of a good many moments where Lone Survivor comes off unintentionally hilarious for the way it bathes in its characters’ almost grotesque superhuman strength. Just as Berg’s SEALs dust themselves off (“That sucked!” says Foster’s soldier), the film seems confident that we’re ready to watch them suffer some more, and so they roll down the hill again. Berg clearly prefers his heroes in combat, making no equivocations about their hardness—after all, in the U.S. military, SEALs are considered the best of the best. Neither does he pretend to be interested in whether or not they should be dropping into Afghanistan in the first place; Bana’s commander does the screenplay a helpful bit of shorthand by pointing to a photo of Shah and commenting “Bad Guy” in an early planning session.

Lone Survivor proofs itself against criticism by hiding behind its protagonists; the physicality of its filmmaking is but a pretext for yet another gargantuan, subliminal recruitment ad. When pogo-sticking from the intense shallow focus of the aforementioned gundown to a lens-flared landscape shot of Kitsch being ripped apart by bullets while practically dangling off a cliff, Schliesser’s vistas are steroidal, operatic, uncannily digital. In moments like these, the goal—to honor the memory of 19 soldiers while detailing their sacrifice as explicitly as possible—reeks of bad faith. The actual Operations Red Wings 1 and 2 were both strategic setbacks for the military, and the body count on the Afghan side (combatant or bystander) is never remotely considered by Berg’s script. But a slideshow epilogue of the real guys at the end (set to a shimmering Peter Gabriel cover of David Bowie’s “Heroes”) maybe speaks the loudest. These men died in the real world so that Luttrell could live and, thus, so that you could pay to watch Mark Wahlberg play him in a movie.

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

the book is excellent, but I think Berg missed the boat on the film. Toooo hollywood. Lots of made up stuff.

Posted by Joseph Pickett on 2014-11-01 18:34:48

true in some point but if u read the book first then you get were the story more than just watching the movie

Posted by someone on 2014-10-09 20:32:36

A I don't see your ass out on from lines fighting terrorists now do I so shut the fuck dumass

Posted by someone on 2014-10-09 20:30:32

FYI smartass we cant there in hiding plus its almost impossible to find there all over Iran and Iraq so even if we were to try to take them they would be very powerful plus I don't think it the government is worried about that right now get your facts strait

Posted by someone on 2014-10-09 20:25:31

Well said brother. NSDQ

Posted by JDoe on 2014-09-04 13:56:27

Still have yet to see B20. And... you type too much.But I like the last sentence.

I lost 8 friends when that helicopter crashed in 05. It'd be best if you and your editor pals retracted everything you just said.

Posted by JDoe on 2014-09-04 09:13:41

Except that its so true. All the liberals Ive run into are limp wristed little faggots who'd as soon wet their panties then stand up for anything. Go back to your gender studies 101 at Oberlan Pajama boy

Posted by gotahugehook on 2014-06-06 19:59:39

You know no sensible person will give what you say any mind once reading your first sentence.

Posted by Sam on 2014-04-26 19:52:47

The trouble I have with this movie is that it echoes the Bravo-Two-Zero fable, whereby a SAS team are dropped into the Iraqi desertduring Gulf War I in order to search and destroy mobile Scud launchers. Theytoo were `compromised' by a wandering goatherd - a young boy; and because thesquad were too humane to take the ruthless action necessary a blood bathensued. Several hundred Iraqis were killed or injured by the superior weaponryskills of the eight man squad. One member even managed a superhuman trek 200 km to the Syrian border, killing or evading the enemy all the way, and overcomingextreme weather conditions which they were ill equipped to deal with. Theothers were captured, killed in contact or died of exposure.

Ten years later a documentary looked closely into the eventsdepicted by the books and discovered some uncomfortable contradictions of theaccount by interviewing locals who were still living in the area. According tothem, no Iraqis were killed; the team weren't compromised by a young goatherd,but by a local guy who drove a bulldozer toward the Wadi where they were holedup. He parked it there to protect the fuel from freezing in the wind chill.

When they were spotted, curiosity and a communication barrier,rather than suspicion, led to an exchange of fire with what was essentially arag tag, local militia that included an Iraq/Iran war veteran using aKalashnikov and others employing antiquated bolt action rifles. The squadmanaged to escape but lack of warm clothing, disagreements and harsh conditionsfragmented the group. The mission was a balls-up from the very beginningcompounded by ineffective or useless communication equipment. Tragicallyseveral men died miserable lonely deaths due to desert exposure, or by enemygunfire near the border, and sadly some of the blame for the failure went onone of these dead comrades who couldn't now defend himself.

The book also contradicts the reports given bythe surviving SAS members to their superiors in the debrief. It now looks anawful lot like the story was subsequently given a fantastic spin in an effortto salvage something glorious from anabortive mission and perpetuate the SAS mythology. When in fact it was adisaster, the reality was the people involved were fallible, made mistakes inplanning and execution, and finally lost cohesion. None of them seemed tounderstand the terrain, the weather conditions, the radio communication protocol,the culture, or speak the language. But it would be nice to think that becausethey were human they didn't kill 200 or so Iraqis after all, in fact they justput down covering fire in order to make their escape, which for one of them atleast, was epic. The real story would have been a lot more convincing (andmoving). After all the use of special forces in this arena, the risk these mentook, was to make sure that the correct targets were hit and hopefully avoidcollateral damage in doing do. They should at least be commended for trying to achieve that, and at great personal risk…

Posted by mammal on 2014-04-22 10:07:55

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck......It's probably a knife.

Posted by mammal on 2014-04-21 08:18:29

A lot of American soldiers *are* dumb hicks with bloodlust - but barring that, I'm pretty sure Slant would still call it out for being a bad movie even if *was* a little more realistic.

Posted by greenpatches on 2014-04-02 16:37:00

It's popular, so it must be good! Nobody's decision to join up has *ever* been influenced by positive depiction of the military life in media, so fuck you and your logic, you stupid critic! They would never make one of these movies just to make piles of money by exploiting the patriotism of the masses (especially not people like me), because all war movies are only made with noble intentions. So whaddayou know CRITIC.

Posted by greenpatches on 2014-04-02 16:34:59

These men? In this movie? I thought they were actors.

Posted by greenpatches on 2014-04-02 16:30:45

America!!!!!!!

Posted by Sam on 2014-01-26 09:36:31

So every conversation in the film used the exact same words that the soldiers really used.

Posted by Sam on 2014-01-26 09:34:32

No, most of this movie is exactly what happened. Marcus was very involved in the making to make sure they got it all right.

Posted by sam on 2014-01-25 01:49:43

I absolutely support reinstating the draft. that is the only way the relationship between civilian and soldier will be fixed. otherwise, we are doomed to continue send our soldiers everywhere.

good job adding to the conversation.

Posted by Killianbk on 2014-01-21 01:24:28

Fuck you and your Gay review!! These men fight to defend your right to free speech then you turn around and stab them in the back. You're no better than the radical extremists that shot up those great men except you do it with words. So Fuck you!!

Posted by bryce on 2014-01-18 05:16:36

Haven't seen the movie, but it sure doesn't sound like a recruitment tool. 19 SEALS--supposedly the toughest of the tough--died in one operation. Sounds more like a cautionary tale: get the hell out of Afghanistan.

Posted by blackbird13 on 2014-01-15 19:46:24

Let me put to rest the fear that this film critic, and almost every film critic seems to face. Soldiers don't take the oath to serve the country and protect the constitution because they saw a movie. They do it because they are patriots. Every movie that comes out that shows America in a positive light, I.E. Lone Survivor, Act of Valor, has the critics fretting and whining about it being a recruiting tool. Just because you're a coward and dont have the guts to put on the uniform, doesn't mean that young men and woman across our country have to be tricked into taking the oath because they watched a movie. We do it because its an honor. P.s. I give your pathetic review 1 star. Also, this movie has already made 38.5 million dollars. Your liberal laced article is insignificant at best. Lastly, I'm going to go see it twice just to show this movie the support it deserves and make you cringe even more as the box office numbers continue to climb.

Posted by Annoyed patriot on 2014-01-14 00:51:38

Killianbk you are an absolute MORON...and I bet if the draft were still in effect you would be 4F or run to Canada with your mommy

Posted by DukeF on 2014-01-11 21:39:28

SCREW YOU SLANT...left win rag...

Posted by DukeF on 2014-01-11 21:34:04

What movie did you see....Seals are trained to be super human...did you watch the first 10 minutes moron?...I bet you voted for OBAMA too....if it were up to me there would be no rules of engagement they went through....TALIBAN should die PERIOD.

Posted by DukeF on 2014-01-11 21:32:49

fuckin militarists out in force here. reagan must be smiling up from hell, while watching rambo II on repeat

Posted by Killianbk on 2014-01-10 17:25:51

supporting or worshiping? because writing a negative review of a film has nothing to do with american veterans. quit fucking whining, and quit endorsing militarism. its ruining america

Posted by Killianbk on 2014-01-10 17:23:59

Did you even watch the film you decry so much as "a recruiting tool or a masochistic thrill ride,"

There is absolutely nothing in this film that glorifies violence, warfare or encourages joining the military. The entire fucking operation is a failure and the film does nothing at all to pump up the actions of the US military. In fact, they go as far as to show an act of recklessness which needlessly caused the deaths of a chopper full of Seals.

When we witness these four soldiers painfully tumbling down hill after hill, we are not being asked to be "thrilled" but to look on in abject horror at the brutality of war.

Posted by Junkie on 2014-01-10 05:58:34

I mean, I can see where your anger stems from, but he's not actually reviewing the book so why call him out like that? What's the point? You could respectfully voice your opinion and articulate your opinions by giving examples from the film...that might be better for discussion if you would rather have that.

Posted by Dan LaTourette on 2014-01-08 21:20:39

It's like the audience isn't able to accept the possibility of this being a bad movie.

Posted by Alex Aston on 2014-01-05 19:02:40

A criticism of the film is not a criticism of the American soldiers, whom this film reduces to squib fodder.I'll say that again because that's the point so many people always get stuck on with war films: A criticism of a war film is not a criticism of the soldiers, and that sort of knee-jerk rejection of any opinion that dare question a war film speaks of a cynical, disengaged desire to essentially entertain only one pre-formed viewpoint.

I don't understand why no one can detect that distinction. I would think that people with war experience would be interested in having respect extended toward them as people, rather than as cogs in a schematic. I also find it interesting that you folks must always go for the personal attack, leaning on stereotypes about where the critics are coming from, but whining that they are the ones leaning on stereotypes. It makes for a paper-thin engagement that's only going to affirm the view others and myself are putting forth.

Posted by CBJ on 2014-01-05 09:29:02

It would be one thing if the critic was being objective, however it so obvious that a positive review would only be given if the american soldiers were portrayed as dumb hicks with bloodlust.

Posted by Shaun Eysaman on 2014-01-04 21:56:28

CBj- actual people involved were consulted -one as in turns out, if you can appreciate that level of bravery and manhood, that i assume you can't- most have read the book and are completely aware of the director's and actor's intention's, which is a truthful and accurate account of what happened. I bet if this movie was presented by a retarded junkie like oliver stone, with his leftwing fantasties, of the american asshole soldier vs. some innocent farmer, then you would respect it. Leftwing bigotry and bias is real, it's not some Faux news- i mean, FOX news fantasy. Lay of the daily KOS, and msnbc and moveon.org and the huffington post and on and on...

Posted by Shaun Eysaman on 2014-01-04 21:34:09

Just because a film is based on a true story does not make it non fiction because many of the events that happen in the film are made up.

Posted by Sam on 2013-12-31 10:30:55

When soldiers really believe in the cause they are fighting for it does not de facto mean that a film so portraying them is jingoistic. Hard as be for Mr. Macfarlane to admit there are people who like being in the military and believe that the fighting they have been asked to do is worth laying down there lives for, which most of the men portrayed in this film then do. Mr. Macfarlane characterizes the battles Red Wings 1&2 as strategic set backs. I'm not sure how that is relevant. Pearl Harbor was a strategic setback. 9/11 was a strategic setback. So are we asked by Mr. Macfarlane not to tell those stories? Would he have Mr. Berg not make any films where the Americans die and we lose the battle. Or should Mr. Berg be asked simply to not make films where the Americans die but they believe in why they on their mission. Shall we just wait like Estragon and Gogo for the correct and acceptable story to be filmed. I think as critics we all have to exam films from their own perspective and their conventional language. We don't need to agree with that perspective but the artist deserves our earnest investigation.

Posted by SLR on 2013-12-30 02:46:27

It is so jingoistic to portray the enemy as the enemy. You liberals will hate anything that dares to make Americans look like good guys.

Posted by Gerrigen on 2013-12-24 17:29:38

Pete, this is not a "piece of fiction" nor is it "BASED on a true event". Peter Berg has said numerous times that he wanted this film to be true to the book as well as Marcus Lutrell and the fallen SEALs. And the "recruiting tool...masochistic thrill ride" is absolutely ludicrous! How can the experiences of these men, brutal, terrifying and deadly, be seen as encouragement or inspiration to lead anyone to want to enlist and have similar experiences? Anyone who would view it as a "thrill ride" would be deranged!

Certainly, a movie critic's job is to evaluate films in a vacuum but this film is the exception to the rule. While Berg admits to taking a "few liberties", they in no way take away from the actual battle events depicted. Marcus Lutrell actually didn't want "Hollywood" to get its paws on his book. But Berg promised an honest depiction and Lutrell says he succeeded. If the guy who survived this horrible event says it is a good depiction, then who are we to disagree? If you know anything at all about Marcus Luttrell then you would know he would never endorse something that would minimize what happened on that mountain in Afghanistan.

And, finally, I'm absolutely sure that Lutrell doesn't view this movie as being for "entertainment" purposes. That is a disgusting statement considering the loss, pain and suffering this man endures to this day, not to mention those who were killed and their families. This is more of a tribute to those 3 men as well as a story of survival, a survival due to the compassion of Afghni Pashtun people who risked their lives by showing human decency at its finest. This ACTUAL true story doesn't deserve criticism based on a Director's previous work or his personality. This film should be evaluated on its depiction of the events that occurred. And if a movie critic expresses opinions on that and how the Director showed those events, whether it's the storytelling or other film issues, then so be it if they happen to be negative. But negativism influenced by political or anti-war/military issues shouldn't apply here. There was too much loss to minimize what happened over there. And all movie critics should be held to a higher standard when evaluating something this important.

Posted by Danny on 2013-12-24 11:52:24

My point is that Peter Berg has said he intended to make the movie as honest and realistic to the book as possible, in honor of the fallen. He's repeatedly said that this is not a typical "adaptation". When the critics decrie the two scenes of the SEALs falling down the mountain as gratuitous, they should read how Lutrell describes it in the book. I've read where critics say Berg focused too much on the injuries but the book, as an "I was there" recalling, is far more graphic than any movie can depict. The reason I stress reading the book is because Marcus Lutrell lived this experience and he says it's as true to his experience than he ever imagined "Hollywood" could create without adding the ubiquitous "love story" or "superhuman" feats that so often are added to an actual REAL event in order to make it more palatable/interesting for viewers. As if people need those types of fluff to "enjoy" the movie. The only reason I suggest reading the book is because I cannot fathom a movie recreating the heart-pounding, desperate emotions the book creates. But if US Navy SEAL Marcus Lutrell says it does and if he says it truly shows the incredible actions of his fellow fallen comrades, then I believe him. But for a critic to criticize Berg for focusing too much on the injuries suffered and the film for being too much of an "ad for the military", then maybe reading Lutrell's account of the actual events might provide the needed perspective to honestly evaluate the movie for what it really is, which is an attempt to recreate the actual events, with very few liberties taken, of an incredible story of heroism and survival. That's all I meant by suggesting the critic read the book. In this particular case, with this movie not being "based on actual events" but actually RECOUNTING actual events, it might put the movie in a different light and, therefore, give the critic a different perspective when viewing the movie. (Obviously this doesn't apply to movies "BASED on actual events". Your point is well taken, though.) I hope I've been able to explain my position clearly. Your response to my post, which was an angry response to what I considered an immature and offensive post, was well written and posited legitimate questions. I enjoy this kind of intellectual discourse. Thanks for your level headedness. And I apologize for my angry response to the earlier post. I should have just let it go. But I'm now glad I didn't because of our "discussion"!

Posted by Danny on 2013-12-24 10:38:04

Dear Literal-minded jingoists and bullies in obvious need of therapy,

The critic, and everyone else by this point, gets that this film is based on a true story. He's not commenting on the presence of violence in the story. He's commenting on the director's attitude toward the violence, and to how the violence is tonally rendered. (And no I didn't consult a thesaurus, and I reckon Steve didn't either...some of us read, look into it.)

Folks, every film, whether taken from real life, or not, after having been filtered through the imaginations of all the people who worked on it, is a work of fiction.

And please..don't accuse anyone of bringing a preconceived message to the proceedings, because most of you haven't seen the film and have come to this review with a clear bug up your ass against someone you view more or less as a liberal critic cliche. Your recourse? You threaten the person with violence for having an opinion different from your own, which is, lest we forget, probably informed by a film YOU HAVEN'T SEEN. So thank you for proving the critic's point about the dehumanization inherent in films such as these.

Allow me to cap this meme with a conclusion that mirrors the level of intelligence, empathy and kindness that many of you have brought to this message board: Go Fuck yourselves.

Happy Holidays,CBJ

Posted by CBJ on 2013-12-24 06:38:31

This a true story you piece of shit. It's disgraceful that American blood has been she'd to keep this Coward sage in his bed. May you die alone and miserable you disrespectful bastard.

Posted by Gerrigen on 2013-12-23 23:03:22

That begs the question: should a film adaptation of a book require audiences (and critics) to read the book AND see the film to give a thoughtful critique of only the film? I don't think so. If there are parts that are unclear in the film or details left out from the novel, that should be part of the film's drawback in its translation from text to screen, not because it is a requirement to read the book prior to watching the film.

It's often difficult to separate original source material from a film, but one should really try to look at both as separate artistic renderings of the same story. A film critic looks at a film; there is no obligation for them to read the book. If we insisted they do so, does that mean readers must also watch the film adaptation or else their opinion is uninformed? Of course not.

If something's not working in the film, it's not fair to simply point to the book and say all the answers are in there. Instead, why not point to the production, or the adaptation, or the directing?

Posted by Aaron Chan on 2013-12-23 14:31:45

What an asshole review. The body count on the afghan side? It sounds like if you had to pick between shooting the guy that wants to harm you or hugging him, you would choose to harm him. These men choose to let the unarmed goat herders, regardless of how hostile they appeared, to go free. In return they were attacked by hostile Taliban soldiers. The movie is a based on the book, which is non-fiction. It is a re-telling of the mission. How can you view any of this as an anti-war film? You deserve a throat punch.

Posted by Richard Madrigal on 2013-12-23 14:17:25

Excellent, thoughtful review. Thank you, Slate, for not being intimidated by the jingoistic anger of some of your readers.

Posted by DeepArcher on 2013-12-23 10:08:59

Name calling?! Really? Wow, you really got your point across. What was your point again? Read the book, dumbass, then come back on this site and give a truly INFORMED opinion. Freakin' moron.

Posted by Danny on 2013-12-21 21:20:14

Hey, Slant film editor - do you know any tabbed soldiers, or SEALs? No? Then maybe you should let them (Luttrell, in this case, as he made sure the film was faithful to his experience) speak for themselves instead of ignorantly foisting your cousin's husband's experience on them. Contra popular belief, not all military folk are the same. Douchebag.

Posted by RoboticSpaceShark on 2013-12-20 22:19:25

I love how these desk jockeying losers have the audacity to tell us what in war is real or dake. I doubt you've ever pushed your body to the physical or mental limit. Probably the hardest thing you've done is Decide between regular or diet soda

Posted by dan on 2013-12-20 20:35:15

I am sitting through this crappy film right now that was sent to me as screener for NYFCO members. So happy to see Slant, my favorite film review website, taking it down.

Posted by louisproyect on 2013-12-20 18:28:31

work of Non-fiction you mean.

Posted by Chris Katechis on 2013-12-17 20:34:22

Stevie how did you get this job? Writing a review without checking out the facts? Marcus Luttrel (played by Wahlberg) wasn't a team leader. Micheal P. Murphy (lieutenant) was a CO. He was also the first soldier to receive Medal of Honor in an Afghan war. Go back to high school, they teach how to research the project BEFORE you write something so ignorant. D bag.

Posted by maciura on 2013-12-17 16:12:49

What a shitty review. Read the book, you pretentious douche bag. And i could tell you needed to use your thesaurus to write your ridiculous review. Big words don't make you look smart. Like someone else said, you can tell you made your mind up before seeing the movie. I'm guessing you are a leftist, hate the military , guns, etc....

Posted by AntileftisttrueAmerican on 2013-12-16 05:03:45

While I completely agree with the rights of critics to say what they want about movies, these reviews (main and comment follow-up) sound like they're written by biased pacifists who already knew what they wanted to say about the movie before they even saw it. They didn't read the book and know nothing about war or Afghanistan (yes, Taliban do in fact behead people, I've seen it with my own eyes, but what Berg doesn't show is them sodomizing the body afterwards which is what happens). I don't know how you can dismiss that as a propagandizing recruiting tool. This is a story that needed to be put in movie format for more people to experience and Berg does an excellent job of it, even down to the interaction between Americans and Afghanis. After being betrayed by the boys they let go, the main character has to find trust in the hospitable Pashtun people in order to survive ("meat-puppets?"). Yes the violence is brutal and prolonged but that's the raw reality of what happened (the actual firefight lasted much longer but I can't imagine what you'd say if it were longer in the movie).

Posted by John on 2013-12-15 12:10:39

Hey Pete. This is the film editor at Slant. Regardless of whether the "premise" of for this movie is to actually "support those that give everything for this country" or not, the job of this critic was to review the film, a work of fiction that happens to be based on a true event, as an artistic statement. A movie such as this should serve a higher purpose than as a recruiting tool or a masochistic thrill ride, and disparaging it for its trite (mis)characterizations of men at war doesn't mean that the struggles of real-life soldiers are being disrespected. I'm not sure why this isn't obviously understood. I have two cousins in the army, and one of them saw her marriage fall apart after her husband at the time lost his mind after shooting an Afghani child in the head as he was approaching a base with a bomb strapped to his body. This is not a film that cares to grapple with the psychological toll of such horrors. With the wit and sophistication of the worst first-person shooter, it presents the relationship between Americans and the so-called "enemies" in only the most cartoonish fashion, simply showing us a bunch of guys being shot at and tumbling down one hill after another and asking us to thrill in all that the human body can take. Steve praises the film for its visceral effect, but the point here is that a film such as this shouldn't work as entertainment. For reducing the American soldier to a mere human meat puppet, denying him any complexity beyond what their bodies can take during war, Peter Berg reveals himself to be, if not a D bag, a dehumanizer of the highest order.

Posted by Slant Magazine on 2013-12-13 16:19:05

Amen!

Posted by Pete Shamlian on 2013-12-12 16:57:33

This review is yet another example of an opinionated tool that gives very little regard to the true meaning behind the movie. Instead of being a "Berg Hater", why not actually support those that give everything for this country, which was the premise for the movie in tge first place? D bag.